Jump to content
The Political Lounge

Debates and Ballots


Debates and Ballots  

14 members have voted

  1. 1. Debate requirements

    • I'm currently satisfied with the 15% requirement
    • Lower it to 10%
    • Lower it to 5%
    • Lower it to 1%
    • All candidates should attend
    • Limit it to a certain number that can take part (please specify)
    • Any candidate with full ballot access to at least 270 electoral votes can take part
    • Any candidate with both full ballot & write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes can take part
    • Other
    • Raise the requirement
  2. 2. Ballot access requirements

    • Increase the number of signatures/dollars required
    • Decrease the number of signatures/dollars required
    • I am satisfied with the current amount
    • Only Democrats and Republicans, get the rest out
    • Anybody who declares their candidacy must be in all the ballots
    • Whether they be increased or decreased there should be a national standard on how many signatures/dollars should be required
    • Don't know, let states do what they want to do
    • Other
  3. 3. Ballot candidates order

    • Let states decided
    • List them by party - parties with the most support goes first
    • List them according to candidate experience
    • List their parties alphabetically
    • List their names alphabetically
    • Allow Fusion Voting
    • Other
  4. 4. Write-ins

    • Ban/invalidate all write-in votes
    • Make all write-in votes count
    • Make write-in votes for living human beings count
    • Make write-in votes for registered candidates count
    • Add a "None of These Candidates" option like in Nevada

Recommended Posts

12 hours ago, Patine said:

Ah, so that what fusion voting refers. Something that given it's usage in New York in the modern day, and California in Presidential elections, shows it still serves the already big parties, leading small parties to, "fuse," and irrelevate themselves as separate electoral entities in exchange for POSSIBLY receiving a few scraps and concessions to their platforms in case of victory (but history, no strong of even executive appointments, it seems). And since the NOTA option was specifically stated to be like the insultingly useless one in Nevada in results, both of these options seem as useful as two club feet, despite superficial viewpoints.

Of course, campaign funding and the power of lobby groups and PAC's (the truly corrupt part of the system, by definition) would also have to be tackled along with debate and ballot reform, as would the EC system of electing the U.S. President and the FPTP system of electing the U.S. House - especially the power given the State governments to gerrymander - or any gains from any reforms here would be in vain.

I actually agree the NOTA should count. For example in a Presidential Election, if "None of these Candidates" beat the main candidates in Nevada (providing we still have the electoral college), the 6 electors should abstain or vote for anybody but the two main candidates. If it's a Senate, Gubernatorial, etc., there should be another election till residents get a satisfactory person or the position should be vacant (or chosen by the Governor).

Edited by Timur
  • Agree 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I added the fusion voting option after I voted, but I think it might be a good idea, but others can feel free to disagree.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Create New...